• Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Thanos’ plan was unmitigated garbage anyway.

    Humanity reached 4B in 1975 and hit 8B in 2022. On that basis, if half of humanity died when Thanos snapped his fingers 50 years later we’d be back to 8B people again.

    ——— Edited to billions not millions because I wrote it while under the influence of stupidity.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That is NOT how species replicate. There are many factors where that number comes from. Including food and space to keep them. I read in college the max for humans is something like 10 million. But most scientists think it’s a already slowing down due to the struggles everyone deals with.

    • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Are… you high? You know that back when I last checked in 2020ish there were 8 billion people, right? Maybe that’s what you meant

      Edit surely you had to have meant that. The US alone has almost half a billion people. Most countries have well over that number so I’m attributing it to mistype

      • f314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They might not be a native English speaker. In my language (Norwegian), the word for “billion” is “milliard”. I think that’s also the case in German.

      • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That’s obviously what they meant. There was probably some translation error. Just cut people some slack, everyone makes small mistakes from time to time. There’s a few (atleast 2) languages where the native word for billion starts with an m and the word for trillion starts with a b.

  • twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Wouldn’t 50% of them die at the same time as the creatures that they live inside? Like unexisting 50% of humans would in fact unexist 50% of the bacteria in the humans who went poof.

    How does this argument make sense?

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If it’s all a truly random selection, which I believe it was, then half of all people would cease to exist, leaving half of their gut biomes behind, still alive (albeit briefly). I guess the end result would be the snapped people leaving behind a mist of gross intestinal bacteria which would itself mostly die out without a host. Meaning much more than half of all gut biome bacteria would be killed as a result.

      Of course it would make more sense to consider a person and their gut flora as one being, but the joke is about how stupid the initial conception of Thanos’ plan is, not creating an academically rigorous argument.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Each bacteria is an individual living organism. So I’m guessing that (within this framework) the humans disappeared, but only ~50% (it would average out to 50% across the entire population) of their gut biome (or I guess any other living organism within them) disappeared.

      And as such, in people who did not disappear, ~50% (on avg) of their gut biome also disappeared.

      The math checks out…

  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    19 hours ago

    E. Coli reproduces so fast that a population can double in size in half an hour, and human feces is 50% bacteria by weight.

    If your gut microbiome got snapped it’d be back so fast you wouldn’t even notice. Bacteria are kinda scary.

    • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      No, viruses don’t mean the scientific definition of life. IIRC, the primary reason why is because, in order to make copies of itself, it must hijack a living cell’s reproductive system to do so. It can’t simply divide to make more of itself.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Come to think about it, whenever a macroscopic organism - ie animals - died it would leave behind about half the microbes living on and in them. When those poor fools got dusted it should have left a puddle of horrible slime on the ground.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 day ago

    Or the 50% of all people that got snapped took 50% of the gut bacteria with them, leaving the rest with no loss to their gut biomes. (taps forehead)

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    1 day ago

    Killing 50% of your gut bacteria is a big nothing.

    These things reproduce on the timescale of hours.

    I kill 90% of my sourdough starter every time I feed it, and it bounces back the same day.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    158
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    That would imply that 50 percent of the snapped people’s biomes remained behind. All of the produce in the grocery stores would be covered in an airborne mist of E. coli, and snapped surgeons that were mid-operation would give their patients staph infections, assuming the suriviving surgery team was able to stablize and close them up before they died anyway. Neat.

    Also when those snapped people returned with the half of their biomes that also got snapped, you would get a sequel to the diarrhea. Diarrhea 2: Electric Boogapoo.

      • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 day ago

        Do viruses get snapped too or na

        And da babies in-utero? Did the Infinity Gauntlet go by conception or 24-weeks?

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          1 day ago

          There were zero reports I’ve heard from any TV, movie, or comic reference to the snap of unborn (but possibly viable) babies being left behind (by any species even) when the pregnant mother disappeared in the snap. That suggests the Infinity Gauntlet doesn’t consider the unborn as a separate individual until birth.

          • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            1 day ago

            unborn (but possibly viable) babies being left behind (by any species even) when the pregnant mother disappeared in the snap.

            This scenario didn’t even enter my head when I posed the question. That’s some Stephen King-level imagery though—a snapped mother disappearing only for an amniotic sac to drop in her place.

            • Match!!@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 day ago

              imagine the stone suddenly surgically removing your conjoined twin but leaving you with a typical body afterwards. then 5 years later your twin - now noticably younger and alien to you - is reattached

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I think the Gauntlet counted any beings that either depended on another to live or supported another to live as all one unit for simplicity’s sake.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 day ago

                I would love a comic series where each Infinity Stone has a representative entity of some kind and we get to see the “thought process” each goes through in fulfilling the request of its wielder. I’m envisioning a format like the Pixar movie “Inside Out” except each stone’s entity is very judgy on how the wielder is using it.

                “Ugh, Goddamit Dr Strange, how many more times do you want to do this Dormamu thing. Its getting really repetitive.” - Time stone

                Or when multiple stones have to work together, they have to hash out what each is going to do to fulfill the desired wish. The conversation between all the stones during “the snap” being the longest and most complicated conversation with questions coming up like “okay Mr Soul Stone smart guy, what about pregnant women?! Is that one soul or two, huh?”

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          And da babies in-utero? Did the Infinity Gauntlet go by conception or 24-weeks?

          Now you got this idea in my head, if it would have been possible to know if the Infinity Gauntlet considered conception, couldn’t a species, lets say humans, knowing “the snap” was a possible risk, create massive stores of zygotes kept on ice? Lets say 10 zygotes to every 1 living human. After the snap of “half” that would mean that instead of 50% of humans disappearing it would only have been 2.5%.

          Moreover, since every other species would have lost 50% and been in chaos it would have been prime opportunity to conquer other species still in disarray.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Now I’d love to see a story about a species that has huge numbers of young but also incredibly high infant mortality. So in the snap they mostly lost a bunch of kids who were going to die anyway. Then they decide to take advantage and invade their neighbors, and Captain Marvel comes to help.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 day ago

        Finally someone asks the real question. Is there an objective definition to life that Virus may or may not fall under? Or would it depend on Thano’s subjective opinion on the matter?

        • BenReilly97@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The scientific definition of life changes constantly, but viruses more often than not fall under “not alive.”

          Throughout, viruses have rarely been considered alive. More than 120 definitions of life exist today, and most require metabolism, a set of chemical reactions that produce energy. Viruses do not metabolize. They also don’t fit some other common criteria. They do not have cells. They cannot reproduce independently. Viruses are inert packages of DNA or RNA that cannot replicate without a host cell.

          Source

        • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Eh, it’s not really that cut and dry. You could debate either way with plenty of evidence, in the end it’s really a limit to the semantics of language

          Edit: here’s a neat article that talks about it

          • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Thats pretty neat “you cant kill something thats not alive”. Can viruses respond to stimuli? We consider bacteria alive but viruses are debated, wheres the line? are enzymes alive? Are prions alive? cool article.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Does that mean for the people that got snapped, some will leave some of their sperm behind?

    And pregnant woman might leave their fetus behind.

      • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        There was never any such ideas being part of it. It affected plantlife and bacteria as well. The idea of a soul to begin with is not even supported by science, although most people consider it to have some kind of validity, even if it’s not quite definable. But the relevant issue is that it’s all life period.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Macroscopic creatures are made of different types of cells and stuff… what constitutes a living thing?

          People didn’t lose half of their cells, it was all or none.

  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Thanos’ snap wouldn’t kill 50% of each survivors’ gut microbiome, it would kill 50% of all the lil buggies that compromise all gut microbiomes, and if the snap effects individuals randomly, you’d see a normal distribution (I think, I haven’t taken stats in a decade). So some survivors would retain 100% of their microbiome, some would lose it all, with a bell curve in between, probably with the peak around 50%.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      That bell curve would be extremely narrow. You have so many lil buggies that basically every human survivor would lose ~50% buggies.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    I want the show where the snapped people come back and then the survivors have to awkwardly explain that they have gotten remarried and otherwise moved on.

    • xXSirDanglesXx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      Right? Taking even the people who disappeared into account, and their gut biomes, would you not consider them all as part of all life?

      If so, there may be some survivors with all of their guy biomes perfectly intact, and others who get unfortunately zilched.

    • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      If the 50% are homogeneously spread -and it’s implied that it is-, then one may assume 50% per person also applies. Like how he didn’t leave 50% of planets alone and purge the rest.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        I would think it’s basically a coin flip for each living thing. It’s possible, for example, that all humans survive, however the probability is so astronomically small, it’s functionally impossible.

        Same with gut biome. Even with several billion attempts, the probability that even 60% of any individual’s trillion gut microbes get snapped would be essentially functionally impossible.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Just to give an idea of the unlikelihood we’re talking about here, you can model this as a Bernoulli process with a binomial distribution.

          If N is the number of beings potentially snapped, then (√N)/2 is the standard deviation. (If you’re curious about why, you can read more here.) So for 8.2 billion people, the standard deviation is ~90,000. The chance of being more than ~3 standard deviations below the mean is 0.1%. That means there’s only a 0.1% chance of snapping less than 4,099,720,200 people.

      • Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I’m not sure it’s stated, but I thought the planets that had already been purged by Thanos’ armies, like Gamora’s planet and Xandar were spared the snap.

  • CoolMatt@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    As someome who is fucking stupid, what ghe hell is a gut biome and why would 50% of the world population disappearing affect it at all? And why would people be power blasting their bathrooms with diarrhea

    • davidagain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      Your gut is full of friendly bacteria that help you digest your food and keep everything running smoothly and efficiency. This vast community of bacteria is called a gut microbiome. People with gut problems like inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome tend to have a much less diverse gut micribiome. Taking a broad spectrum antibiotic can devastate your gut microbiome, letting the bad bacteria thrive while the good ones are offstage, sometimes leading to some of the same symptoms that people with IBD and IBS might encounter, and it can take months to recover.

      Killing 50% of all living things might include 50% of gut microbia, resulting in the potential for bloating, gassiness, stomach cramps, and potentially diarrhoea.